In Mario, all of the characters have looked basically the same since Super Mario World, Luigi was always tall and had a different mustache, Mario was always shorter, with his own mustache, too. But the Zelda series was always kind of a mixed bag. Link has always had mostly the same appearance throughout the franchise, besides of course early merchandise and Wind Waker, and Wind Waker link looked so different, that Nintendo didn't even consider them as the same character in Smash 4, Toon Link is seperate from normal Link. He also had purple hair in Link to the Past which I always found odd. But Zelda, nobody seems to know what she looks like, or what she's supposed to act like for that matter.

In Twilight Princess, she looks like this, which is the look they adapted for most Smash Bros. GamesI'm not very familiar with Twilight Princess, but from what I've gathered, in this game she appears to be dark hair, she acts kind of dark as well. But then we get Skyward SwordThis iteration of Zelda is basically the complete opposite of how she was in Twilight Princess, she has blonde hair, is always cheerful, and overall really friendly. I haven't played Breath of the Wild yet, but Zelda is different once again! What's going on? Are these the same people? If so, why hasn't Nintendo created a solid example of who Zelda is after all these years?

Edit: Even ignoring the inevitable timeline arguments, the Master Sword (as named) was created (or reforged from the Goddess Sword or whatever) in Skyward Sword aided by a Link that is older than the one who finds it already forged in Ocarina of Time. There are lots of things like this. They were never intended to always be the same people.

Then why are they all named Zelda? If Nintendo wanted it to be simple, it would make sense for them to either just use the same person each time, or at least give them different names. Of course, Nintendo clearly isn't aiming to be simple with their timeline, that's why it's still debated by a bunch of nerds on the internet!

Then why are they all named Zelda? If Nintendo wanted it to be simple, it would make sense for them to either just use the same person each time, or at least give them different names. Of course, Nintendo clearly isn't aiming to be simple with their timeline, that's why it's still debated by a bunch of nerds on the internet!

The timeline question aside, it's not uncommon for real life royalty to reuse the same name across generations.

If you even care to ask why they're all called Zelda, it may be even more questionable on why the protagonists are all called Link, not to mention the games are called Legend of Zelda, so it is reasonable that in each of the universes/timelines there is a princess named Zelda, and the male protagonist in each setting is not necessarily named the same, yet they're still called Link (there may be an official reason to that but I don't really care).I think this does not apply to Ganon/Gannon though as he's actually the very same villain in all the settings (correct me if I am wrong).

I.e. Link is not some random guy who accidentally stumbles into the adventure, he's literally the chosen one. That's why every Link has the same name and the same basic outfit.Same with Zelda.

And yes, Ganon is always the same, simply getting resurrected Dracula/"Castlevania"-style if he has died in the previous game.Well, due to the three timelines, Ganon still exists in three different variations, just like there are two different versions of George McFly. But within the same timeline, there are not multiple Ganons, but multiple Zeldas and Links.

One thing I find curious: There is one more Zelda than there is a Link: "Zelda II" had the same hero from "Zelda I", but a different princess who was put into a sleep many centuries ago.So, that Zelda from the second game: Is she also one of the Zeldas, chosen by the goddesses? Or is she just a normal princess who simply happens to have the same name by coincidence? Because when her main story happened, she didn't seem to have her own hero named Link to rescue her, nor was her story tied to Ganon.

I think Link and Zelda are redesigned in every game for the same reason it's done in any other game series. It's to make sure the series is kept fresh and interest for it among old and new players is not lost. I guess Nintendo just didn't feel it was necessary to do it as much with the Mario series (although that one also slowly changes).

The dark look of Twilight Princess was obviously made because of criticism that the Wind Waker look got, and this is reflected on the character design (Link and Zelda both used to be mostly blonde except maybe for Link in Zelda 1). And Skyward Sword got a look with something in between the two last games to appeal to a larger mass and just to plainly make it beautiful, I think they succeeded with that. In Breath of the Wild they have a more nomadic or wild look etc.

Yeah Link and Zelda are usually not the same persons through out the games except for Link in Zelda 1 and 2 are the same (but there are two different Zeldas as DRW said), Link in A Link to the Past are the same as in Link's Awakening and the two Oracle games and finally Link in Ocarina of Time is the same as in Majoras Mask. I think possibly both Links and Zeldas are reincarnations of previous ones in some cases and their names may be part of divine interventions as DRW suspects. And although all the Zeldas are of the same royal blood line, Link is usually unrelated to other Links. One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.Also the Twilight Princess Link may not be a reincarnation of the Hero of Time though since he meets and receives lessons from his spirit in the game. I don't think his spirit can be in two places at once.

I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.

I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.

One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.

ALttP plays in the fallen timeline where Link of OoT died in the final battle against Ganon. That's why Ganon had to be defeated by the knights instead of the Hero of Time.

But even if the fallen timeline didn't exist, it's logically impossible that the uncle is a descendent of OoT Link.Because at the end of OoT, Link was sent back into his child days where Ganondorf could be stopped long before anything serious happened.So, in the timeline where the big showdown with Ganon happened, the Hero of Time disappeared because he was sent back in time, so this timeline didn't have a Link anymore, hence he couldn't have any children there.

Pokun wrote:

I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.

Which is pretty ironic: Zelda from part 1 is one of the Zeldas. One of the Zeldas who is connected to Link and Ganon.While the Zelda from part 2 is obviously just some random princess.But still, the one from part 1 (the predestined one) is named after the one from part 2 (the regular one).

Pokun wrote:

I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.

ALttP was also intended as a prequel to the NES games. They even mentioned Link and Zelda from those games in the box texts and (Japanese?) manual.

So, yeah, it was intended as an on-going series.

OoT then included the timeline split. (And to fill the plot hole where ALttP says that knights defeated Ganon, they invented this third timeline/alternate continuity where Link was defeated by Ganon, so other people had to fight him afterwards.)

Link looks roughly the same because he's the avatar for the player, and "needs" to be familiar so that the player can easily identify with him.

Zelda is mostly just the object of the game herself or closely related to the object of the game, or some part of it, and "needs" to be changed to provide change between games.

---

Anyway, is there a rationale for zelda being a different zelda in zelda 2? I don't remember the game explaining that and I thought everyone at the time, perhaps people at nintendo included, thought that all actors where the same between 1 and 2.

There's this line right at the start of the game:"After ganon was destroyed, Impa told Link a sleeping spell was cast on princess Zelda". That implies full continuity.

They certainly appear ti be the same in the officially endorsed tv-series that was based on these two, even if they revamped zelda to be more of an actual person with her own agenda. Of which the comic version basically shaped my perception of what zelda ought to look like forever (i think they drew he with a little more expression in the tv series, but i didn't see that until later).

What do you mean Link looks the same? Both Link and Zelda has changed roughly the same amount through out the series.

Canonically the two Zeldas in the first two games are two different princesses of the same royal family. Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda". The localizers just screwed up a bit when they fixed the Engrish and managed to hide that fact, but it's still clearly stated in the manual backstory (which is an excellent translation of the Japanese manual).The American TV series and Valiant comics mixes Zelda 1 and 2 and only have one princess, of course it's not canon in any way. My image of Link and Zelda was partly formed from those comics but it soon changed as it didn't fit well with later games that had more dialogue. Zelda is said to be a bit of a tomboy (heard from gossip stones) but she still can act like a princess at least.

DRW wrote:

Pokun wrote:

One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.

ALttP plays in the fallen timeline where Link of OoT died in the final battle against Ganon. That's why Ganon had to be defeated by the knights instead of the Hero of Time.

But even if the fallen timeline didn't exist, it's logically impossible that the uncle is a descendent of OoT Link.Because at the end of OoT, Link was sent back into his child days where Ganondorf could be stopped long before anything serious happened.So, in the timeline where the big showdown with Ganon happened, the Hero of Time disappeared because he was sent back in time, so this timeline didn't have a Link anymore, hence he couldn't have any children there.

Yes and that's the thing, the backstory of Alttp tells that the knight(s) were defeated by Ganon but the fight bought time for the sages to seal Ganon. If Link is this knight or one of them, it makes sense if he lost against Ganon in OoT. Though if that is the case and he died in the battle, he must have left (illegitimate) descendants after him sometime during the game before the final battle in the game. If he was defeated but somehow survived however it's not a problem.

DRW wrote:

Pokun wrote:

I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.

Which is pretty ironic: Zelda from part 1 is one of the Zeldas. One of the Zeldas who is connected to Link and Ganon.While the Zelda from part 2 is obviously just some random princess.But still, the one from part 1 (the predestined one) is named after the one from part 2 (the regular one).

More interesting though, who did Link hook up with? I bet it was Zelda 2 Zelda as he kisses her behind the curtains. He is such a playboy having two princesses, but not as much as Hero of Time though, sweeping off the feet of every girl he meets and then runs away after the smallest one (Navi) to the forest.

DRW wrote:

Pokun wrote:

I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.

ALttP was also intended as a prequel to the NES games. They even mentioned Link and Zelda from those games in the box texts and (Japanese?) manual.

So, yeah, it was intended as an on-going series.

OoT then included the timeline split. (And to fill the plot hole where ALttP says that knights defeated Ganon, they invented this third timeline/alternate continuity where Link was defeated by Ganon, so other people had to fight him afterwards.)

Yeah it's possible. Although at the time I thought they did a university switch. It was very common in the RPG genre after all.I don't remember that from the Japanese manual though.The map in Alttp seems to be designed after the Zelda 1 map. The Zelda 1 map is in ruins though, Kakariko is a grave yard and the castle is pretty much gone. The sea has also strangely appeared in place of Lake Hylia. The mountain has also been renamed from Hera back to Death Mountain again. Actually Zelda 1 is the only game where the name makes sense as it's the big bad's hideout, and not just some innocent mountain that has got an unfortunate name. I guess that's why the renamed it to Hera in AlttP.

Canonically the two Zeldas in the first two games are two different princesses of the same royal family. Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda".

The manual (also the English one) makes it even clearer.

Pokun wrote:

Yes and that's the thing, the backstory of Alttp tells that the knight(s) were defeated by Ganon but the fight bought time for the sages to seal Ganon. If Link is this knight or one of them, it makes sense if he lost against Ganon in OoT.

I'm pretty sure Link is not supposed to be the knight.

Pokun wrote:

Though if that is the case and he died in the battle, he must have left (illegitimate) descendants after him sometime during the game before the final battle in the game. If he was defeated but somehow survived however it's not a problem.

Pretty unlikely. He went from the child timeline to the adult timeline. I doubt there's a possibility for him to hook up with some woman in the meantime.And no matter if he wins or loses: If he loses, he's dead anyway. And if he wins, he's transported back into the past.Hence, neither the fallen timeline not the adult timeline can have descendents of that Link. He was brought back to the past and lived out his live from that point on. So, the Hero of Time only existed in the child timeline in the end.

The most simple assumption is that ALttP Link is not blood-related with OoT Link.

Pokun wrote:

More interesting though, who did Link hook up with? I bet it was Zelda 2 Zelda as he kisses her behind the curtains.

Yes, that's the only canon instance where Link and Zelda actually hook up. Part 1 has no romance indication, but part 2 has. Which also makes sense: The legendary Link never hooks up with the legendary Zelda. But the Zelda from this game is just one random princess and not one of those divinely chosen beings.

Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda". The localizers just screwed up a bit when they fixed the Engrish and managed to hide that fact, but it's still clearly stated in the manual backstory (which is an excellent translation of the Japanese manual)

Oh, i see. I never owned the game and only borrowed it as a kid, so that fact has evaded me until now.

Doctor: Where does it hurt?Me: All over my childhood

Quote:

What do you mean Link looks the same? Both Link and Zelda has changed roughly the same amount through out the series.

No, i don't think so - which is the premise of this thread; why does/do [the] zelda[s] change so much?. Regardless the general art style, the different links are up until BotW always recognizeable for their green tunic, hood, hairstyle (with the one-shot, very mid-90:s fashion change of hairstyle from oblique fringe to gelled middle part seen in ocarina of time). The extent of his fashion change were between whether he'd wear mustard-yellow or white tights. The face has basically the same features beneath the stylism of the day. Not seen in the attached pic someone has done is the game boy title, but it's also a very close match, as you can see in the cutscenes.

Zelda held on to her half-apron through majora's mask to Spirit tracks based on the tunic from OoT, but in all else she's changed. Curly hair, straight hair, different haircuts, different headwear, different jewelry, definitely different dresses, and several faces that cannot be wholly explained by change of art style.

The best consistency we get is between windwaker, minish cap, and spirit tracks.

Yeah, the tv series and the comics are surely decanonized since long if not immediately after their airing/publication. But at the time they were active, they were officially sanctioned by NOA and formed the perception of link and zelda kids had in (the) america(s?) and europe of that time when zelda 1 and 2 still were fresh. I think that was the general perception kids had (maybe with the exception of the LttP comics) up until OoT showed up with a more liberal, remixing approach to the series.

Yeah a sequel would be cool but it might be hard to build a story upon that. Link is basically chosen the new ruler of Hyrule (whichever Zelda he picked as wife) holding the Triforce with its full potential. Ganon, who he killed earlier, can't be resurrected without his blood. With Ganon gone and so much power in hand, who is going to stand in his way?

Quote:

No, i don't think so - which is the premise of this thread...

I don't get it. The only Zelda I can see there that had a big change without Link also having a big change is the Skyward Sword one, and that's mostly because she isn't a princess yet.

Quote:

Yeah, the tv series and the comics are surely decanonized since long if not immediately after their airing/publication. But at the time they were active, they were officially sanctioned by NOA and formed the perception of link and zelda kids had in (the) america(s?) and europe of that time when zelda 1 and 2 still were fresh. I think remember that was the general perception until OoT showed up with a more liberal, remixing approach to the series.

NOA here and NOA there why are everyone so crazy about NOA and those stupid TV series and comics? They didn't make Zelda and they definitely don't decide what's canon. They never did and never will.

DRW wrote:

I'm pretty sure Link is not supposed to be the knight.

It used to be clear to me that he was, until I remembered that the knights actually lost the war. Then Nintendo made up the defeat timeline and it made sense again.Although Alttp clearly says knights (both language versions) he is still just a forest tomte (google it) in OoT and is never really knighted or anything in the game.

Quote:

Pretty unlikely. He went from the child timeline to the adult timeline. I doubt there's a possibility for him to hook up with some woman in the meantime.And no matter if he wins or loses: If he loses, he's dead anyway. And if he wins, he's transported back into the past.

Well he do manages to gather quite a number of groupies, so that's not a problem. The fact that it is never depicted in the game is however.

Quote:

Yes, that's the only canon instance where Link and Zelda actually hook up. Part 1 has no romance indication, but part 2 has. Which also makes sense: The legendary Link never hooks up with the legendary Zelda. But the Zelda from this game is just one random princess and not one of those divinely chosen beings.

That's one boring rule. It's never really clear if he manages to hook up with any Zelda or not although there are clear hints of a romance in many games. Also it's not so clear what Zeldas are "chosen ones" and not. I think the goddesses are often dabbling in their lives as answers to prayers and such.

I don't get it. The only Zelda I can see there that had a big change without Link also having a big change is the Skyward Sword one, and that's mostly because she isn't a princess yet.

To be fair, the change from the christian cross to a proper triforce crest is a pretty dramatic and lore changing difference, and both have undergone a change of hairtone. Else, i think link is a lot less changing. I guess we just decode these renditions differently.

Quote:

NOA here and NOA there why are everyone so crazy about NOA and those stupid TV series and comics? They didn't make Zelda and they definitely don't decide what's canon. They never did and never will.

Because affection is not about canon. It's about experience. Because if you're from Europe, Australia, N. or S. America, what you experienced as a kid was NOA:s version and NOA:s side products. While the japanese version is the original and canon and that's a fact and a thing to appreciate in hindsight, i think denying or retconning ones' personal past experience would be artificial (historical revisionism on a personal level) and in discord with your true memory if you played these games in the 80s or early 90s in said regions. Obviously people are going to be crazy about NOA and "those stupid TV series and comics" - it's a genuine childhood experience for those living in these regions at that time, while the japanese version is not an experience they had at all. Whatever the japanese version said or displayed doesn't hold any nostalgic value for this generation/this group, however interesting it might be to study or rewarding to appreciate.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum